NIKHIL ENGICON WORKS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAVI KANT DUBEY S/O HANS LOCHAN DUBEY Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The long story which emerges out from this writ application has to be cut short in view of the limited dispute which has been raised by the petitioner. The property known as M/s Caydee Engineers Private Limited located at Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna was put on sale. The unit in question was advertised under continuous sale policy of the Corporation on 25.6.1995. There was no suitable buyer for many a years but only some time in the year 2007 petitioner approached Bihar State Financial Corporation with an offer to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs. 43 lakhs. Petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs. One lakh as earnest money to participate in the tender.

(2.) On 15.5.2007 a negotiation was held and the terms and conditions for the sale was discussed. It is the contention of the petitioner that they were taken by surprise when he was informed by the Managing Director of BSFC that the offer made by him is a conditional acceptance because the Corporation is going to re-advertise the unit looking for a higher price. They wanted to have yet another go to the market for getting better return on the sale. The advertisement was issued which is dated 9.6.2007 and is annexure-3 to the writ application. The same did not get a better price for the Corporation therefore they decided to issue sale order with certain terms and conditions to the petitioner, which would be evident from annexure-5 dated 26.7.2007. The petitioner was informed by that letter that he will have to deposit money in accordance with the terms and condition of the sale order. There was failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit 25% of the total consideration price i.e. Rs. 10.75 lakhs which led to issuance of annexure-1dated 28.9.2007 to the writ application. By virtue of this decision petitioner's earnest money of Rs. One lakh has been forfeited. The petitioner therefore decided to challenge this order in the present writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that annexure-1 smacks of arbitrariness and the respondents have unfairly treated the petitioner by forfeiting the earnest money when the default lies at their door step. The respondents cannot be permitted to gain at the cost of the petitioner when the petitioner on the very first occasion communicated his decision to opt out of the race or the bid for the property vide letter dated 30.5.2007.